Some theoretical differences are unbridgeable. For example, what specialists call the incommensurability thesis is either true or false (I think it is false). Yet considering that a war for the moral sense of Western Civilization is going on, you would think Thomists and other natural law thinkers would work harder to find common ground. To this end, I suggest:
That one can believe natural law is knowable by reason, without denying that it presupposes eternal law and is deepened by revelation.
Conversely, that one can accept the deeply Christian character of Thomist thought, without denying its claim to be philosophy.
That one can find merit in Intelligent Design arguments, without holding a “mechanistic” view or denying final causality.
Conversely, that one can consider the traditional metaphysical proofs for God’s existence stronger and more fundamental than ID arguments, without denying the merit of ID arguments so far as they go.
That one can say that the New Natural Law theory is not what Thomas Aquinas had in mind, without intending insult to the NNL thinkers.
Conversely, that one can find the NNL theory’s analysis of one-flesh unity suggestive in certain ways, without thinking that it contains the whole truth, turning one’s back on natural teleology, or turning into an NNL theorist.
That one can believe natural purposes are “in” things, without holding a “crude biologism” which denies that they indwell our minds as natural meanings.
Conversely, that one can believe that such meanings naturally pattern human consciousness, without becoming “subjectivists” who are trapped in their own minds.
Finally, that one can acknowledge St. Thomas’s deep debt to Aristotle, without denying his equal debt to St. Augustine.
Next question: How do we explain things like this without using ten-dollar words?